list_wallets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists encrypted wallets and shows active ones, implying a read-only filesystem operation. However, it does not mention prerequisites like directory existence or permissions, which would enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and where it looks. Minor omission: it does not describe the output format, but this is acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no need for additional parameter info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists encrypted wallets from a specific directory (~/.agent-wallet) and indicates which are active. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_wallet, set_active_wallet, and get_wallet_address.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to view available wallets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like set_active_wallet or import_wallet. No exclusions or context are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.